Get Concept2 Workout Result

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by detailing the response contents (e.g., split_data, stroke data availability) and clarifying the output format options, which annotations do not cover.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose and return details, then lists parameters. It is fairly concise, though the Args section is redundant with the schema, making it slightly less efficient than it could be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple, read-only retrieval tool with thorough annotations and a fully described schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, output fields, and parameter defaults. No output schema exists, so the explicit list of returned fields fills that gap appropriately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, including defaults and enums. The description's Args section merely restates the schema information without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but provides no extra semantic value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Retrieve a single workout result by ID') and the resource ('Concept2 Logbook'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_results or get_result_strokes. The title reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly indicates this is for fetching a single result by ID, which implies the appropriate use case. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'for multiple results use concept2_list_results'), so it falls short of full guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.